DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT VERSUS SUBHASH SHARMA 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 137

(Latest)

Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan.

Introduction:
The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest found to be illegal mandates the release of the accused on bail. The Court rejected the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) appeal, emphasizing that failure to present the accused before a magistrate within 24 hours violates constitutional rights. The decision underscored the duty of courts to uphold fundamental rights in such cases.

Facts:
Subhash Sharma was detained by the Immigration Bureau at IGI Airport, Delhi, on March 5, 2022, under a Look Out Circular issued by the ED. The ED claimed the arrest took place at 1:15 AM on March 6, 2022, but failed to produce Sharma before a magistrate within the required 24-hour period. The Supreme Court found the arrest illegal due to this procedural lapse.

Issues:

Whether the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with the 24-hour provision under Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
Whether the accused is entitled to bail when the arrest is found to violate constitutional rights.

You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]

Contentions of the Petitioner:
The ED contended that the arrest was valid as it occurred within the stipulated 24-hour period, and the accused was presented before the magistrate on time, arguing that the arrest was not illegal.

Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent (Subhash Sharma) argued that the arrest was illegal as he was already in custody from 11:00 AM on March 5, 2022, and was not presented before a magistrate within the required 24 hours, violating his constitutional rights under Articles 21 and 22.

Court Analysis with Legal Provisions:
The Court analyzed the violation of Article 22(2), which mandates the arrestee be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. It held that this constitutional safeguard applies to all cases, including those under the PMLA. The Court found that the failure to comply with this requirement vitiated the arrest and violated the accused's fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

Conclusions:
The Court concluded that the illegal arrest mandated the release of the accused on bail, rejecting the ED's appeal. It affirmed that once an arrest violates constitutional rights, bail must be granted, regardless of other statutory conditions. The appeal was dismissed.

Posted By: Aishwarya Chourasia

Back